The disclosure aspect is what I don't like about this law.

>> ^blingaway:

No room for artist interpretation?
The thing with down-picking is it limits the speed at which one can play and it's very fatiguing in the long run. It's easier for a beginner to down-pick, and it looks cool, but it's a bad habit to cultivate if one wants to develop real technical proficiency.
Don't get me wrong, good alternate picking is important, but you seem to think that people down-pick because it's easier than alternate picking. It's actually not, especially if you want to play a fast song. Down-picking is a valid technique that produces a distinctly different sound than alternate picking. It's especially common in metal and punk. Master of Puppets by Metallica is a really good example of this. Almost the entire rhythm section of the song is down picked. Try playing along to it one day (or worse, a live version where it's even faster). I guarantee your picking forearm will ache by the time you get to the acoustic bit!

As for artist interpretation, if you don't like that kinda music, or even the down picking sound, that's fine, but the people doing it are not doing through lack of technical proficiency.
Full disclosure: I've been playing guitar for nearly 20 years. I don't claim to be a virtuoso, but I started out playing a lot of metal, so I know this stuff.

From TPM:

The “controversy” around President Obama’s 1990 speech at Harvard on the occasion of the late Professor Bell’s decision to take a leave of absence to protest Harvard’s hiring practices is shameful in what it implies (full disclosure — Professor Bell taught me Constitutional Law at NYU during his self-imposed exile from Harvard).

The implication is that Professor Bell was some kind of violent radical racist. Professor Bell was a HERO who dedicated his life to desegregating the United States. From his job as the only black lawyer in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the 1950’s, to his work alongside Thurgood Marshall bringing hundreds of desegregation actions in Mississippi, right up to his leaving Harvard, Professor Bell lived what he preached. That his life’s work was radical or provocative says more about how far we have left to go. If its radical to be appalled that Harvard Law School had no women law professors and only five black male law professors among hundreds of professors, then the world could use a lot more radicals. And to tarnish his reputation as simply anti-white is false and totally and intentionally missing the point. I hope to see President Obama speak about Professor Bell, in prime time, on all networks, if for no other reason than this was an American hero that more people should know about and take inspiration from.

>> ^bmacs27:
Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion).

My basic assertions are two

1. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between "piracy" and profit for the industry.
   
2. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between number of "piracy" lawsuits and number of "pirates".
   

Furthermore, the opposite correlations have been shown to exist for at least the first case, and the second seems almost completely decoupled.

I am not asserting that the RI/MPAA does not waste their money alienating their customers. Only that when they do that they don't have an evidence based economic reason for doing so.

I object to the industries "common sense" observation that they "must" be losing money ( when they are making the same or better money than prevailing trends would project at less expense ) being taken as a given without the slightest concern for facts.

If you search for "Could the industry as a whole be gaining" that's near the beginning of the details I'm referring to. Lessig cuts them a lot of slack, but the basic facts he lays out don't conform to the industry narrative I am disputing.

Full disclosure: my annual purchasing of music and movies went from ~$100 to ~$500 the year I started file sharing, and then from ~$500 to $0 the year the MPAA served me with papers, and I stopped file sharing. I'm biased, but I have been following this whole thing very closely, and I know they made money off me sharing, and they lost money by stopping me.

>> ^Skeeve:

I don't think Doublespeak means what you think it means.
As for what the tax is called, I'm not sure, but I think most of it is just plain old GST.
With regards to the disclosure, most of that information is protected by Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so without FOI request you aren't going to find out. You can find audit reports of various raffles and lotteries at the Ministry of Public Safety's website but they will be redacted to adhere to the freedom of info laws.
Anyway, it's not a scam or fraud - they are audited regularly to ensure compliance with the rather strict gaming laws.

How would you know what Doublespeak means when you're actively engaging in it?

So the BC Children's Hospital Foundation doesn't have to disclose where any of the money went, only pay out 25% and this is "strict gaming laws"? LOL ok pal.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Skeeve:
@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.

Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?
Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.


Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because the news show didn't say, doesn't mean the information is unavailable. Also, there is no concrete reason to assume validity on the report. Fox News should have shown everyone that at least.

Also, when @Skeeve said "winnings are not taxable" they meant the recipient is not taxed, the lottery is. Lottery takes in 10mil, government takes 5mil, winner gets prize of 5mil. Unlike the US, where the tax burden is on the recipient, which only really makes the lottery look better. Powerball is kinda lame that way. "biggest payout" but you lose over half almost immediately. I like the Canadian lottery system, you keep what you kill.

I don't think Doublespeak means what you think it means.

As for what the tax is called, I'm not sure, but I think most of it is just plain old GST.

With regards to the disclosure, most of that information is protected by Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so without FOI request you aren't going to find out. You can find audit reports of various raffles and lotteries at the Ministry of Public Safety's website but they will be redacted to adhere to the freedom of info laws.

Anyway, it's not a scam or fraud - they are audited regularly to ensure compliance with the rather strict gaming laws.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Skeeve:
@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.

Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?
Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.

>> ^Skeeve:

@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.


Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?

Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.

Just because the universe might be eternal, does not mean that God is the automatic solution, nor the simplest explanation. That's just the one that makes sense to you. I would say that an eternal universe filled with rocks and gas is a little less complicated than an eternal, thinking, feeling, all-powerful being. But again, that's just my opinion. Those are large concepts, and the rules of physics, or even the seemingly bizarre rules of quantum mechanics do nothing to help explain them.

To me it is simply a probability argument. If you say that everything is equally unlikely, then if you strip away all other concerns, you just have the question..was the Universe deliberately created? The answer is either yes or no. You have evidence that perhaps there is design, which implies an intelligent (and powerful) creator. You have evidence that perhaps it could have happened by chance, by naturalistic processes. From there, you have to figure out what explanation best matches reality. You could ask, does something as wonderful as life and as amazing as the Universe just happen by itself? You could ask, am I just a bunch of atoms moving through space or is there something more to me than that?

Is an eternal God hard to grasp? Yes, but easier I think than something from nothing. If it is something from nothing we will always be ignorant of the initial conditions. If God created it, He will (presumably) educate us about the mystery of His existence. He promised this:

1 Corinthians 13:12

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

It is basically saying that God promises full disclosure when His Kingdom is established on Earth..

Occam's razor is simply a pragmatic way to find a solution, it does not prove anything, but just suggest what a likely answer might be. People use that argument about the complexity of universal laws all the time, but the fact of the matter is, we still don't understand 99.99999999% of the universe or how it works. We can see that if we "tweaked the dials", it would probably look much different than the universe we know, but there isn't a scientist out there in this world that could tell you with any certainty what would happen. Only that on a large scale, things might fall inward or burst outward faster, or that water might not congeal the same way.

Well, just in the initial conditions of the Universe, you have several values which just defy any naturalistic explanation. Even atheist scientists have to admit that a straight forward explanation indicates a designer:

Fred Hoyle, Astronomer said

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

This has major implications for scientific theories, because it isn't simply a matter of it being incredibly unlikely, it is also matter of contradicting the predictions of standard models. I think you'll enjoy this article:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013v3.pdf

Speaking of complexity, here's an exercise for your brain: Think about a mountain, on part of that mountain, pressure builds up, and a rock slide starts to fall. When it finally settles, the rocks, all the little pebbles and large boulders and particles of dust are arranged in just a certain way. Even though it's just a pile of rocks, it contains within it an inconceivable amount of complexity. Nowhere else in the entire universe, will there ever be a pile of rocks that have the exact specifications of this one. And even if it did, it wouldn't be composed of the same stone, And even if was, the elements that make up the stone wouldn't be arranged the same way. Nor would it be the exact same temperature, unless it was in the exact same relative position in the universe with an identical sun, with all the particles of gas and dust in between them arranged in exactly the same way.

In a way, the pile of rocks, when you think about it, is an impossibility. And yet it exists. There is no simple solution to explain it. An eternal creator, or the laws of physics? Either way, the true meaning is something that neither of us can comprehend. And to say that either one is "simpler" than the other is merely a statement of faith. Not fact.

Sure, taken by itself, such a thing is astonishing to behold. Divorced from its circumstances, it is perplexing to say the least. Yet, either explanation for the origin of this impossibility leads to a definitive conclusion. If it was naturalism, there is no meaning to it. It just happened that way and at best you can invent a meaning for it and decide to believe it. If it was created, however, it was created for a purpose. It has meaning because of that purpose; it is invested with meaning. In naturalism, you are practically looking at something alien. It is cold, dead, inexplicable, and doesn't care about you. Under creation, you are at the least staring this quote from Einstein dead in the face:

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

I go a step further because I believe God has revealed a bit about his Dewey Decimal System, but essentially, I am in staring at this in awe and wonder. I think those rocks are amazing and startling, but I also praise God for making them that way.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
We love you too. (but it's a rough, heathen love)
Just because the universe might be eternal, does not mean that God is the automatic solution, nor the simplest explanation. That's just the one that makes sense to you. I would say that an eternal universe filled with rocks and gas is a little less complicated than an eternal, thinking, feeling, all-powerful being. But again, that's just my opinion. Those are large concepts, and the rules of physics, or even the seemingly bizarre rules of quantum mechanics do nothing to help explain them.
Occam's razor is simply a pragmatic way to find a solution, it does not prove anything, but just suggest what a likely answer might be. People use that argument about the complexity of universal laws all the time, but the fact of the matter is, we still don't understand 99.99999999% of the universe or how it works. We can see that if we "tweaked the dials", it would probably look much different than the universe we know, but there isn't a scientist out there in this world that could tell you with any certainty what would happen. Only that on a large scale, things might fall inward or burst outward faster, or that water might not congeal the same way.
Point being, just because we can tell that the universe would be different, doesn't mean that it was designed. It just means that it is this way.
Speaking of complexity, here's an exercise for your brain: Think about a mountain, on part of that mountain, pressure builds up, and a rock slide starts to fall. When it finally settles, the rocks, all the little pebbles and large boulders and particles of dust are arranged in just a certain way. Even though it's just a pile of rocks, it contains within it an inconceivable amount of complexity. Nowhere else in the entire universe, will there ever be a pile of rocks that have the exact specifications of this one. And even if it did, it wouldn't be composed of the same stone, And even if was, the elements that make up the stone wouldn't be arranged the same way. Nor would it be the exact same temperature, unless it was in the exact same relative position in the universe with an identical sun, with all the particles of gas and dust in between them arranged in exactly the same way.
In a way, the pile of rocks, when you think about it, is an impossibility. And yet it exists. There is no simple solution to explain it. An eternal creator, or the laws of physics? Either way, the true meaning is something that neither of us can comprehend. And to say that either one is "simpler" than the other is merely a statement of faith. Not fact.

I guess I stand corrected, most gamers are now grumpy old men pining for the glories of yesteryear.

Fuck me, no wonder they advertize Viagra during X-Play.

I hear what you guys are saying, I just don't feel the same way. I guess part of it is that I don't really get the appeal of first person shooters anymore. I sorta liked 'em back when Doom was a hot name in gaming, and when I was young enough to think Duke Nukem 3D was groundbreaking for its mature themes. The last one I really liked was Half-Life, but that's because it heavily incorporated story elements, not because of the game mechanics (which were far from groundbreaking).

I thought Gears of War was a refreshing change of pace, and IMO presented the first real gameplay innovations we've seen in shooters since Doom. I'm glad there's been a lot of copying of their cover mechanics, since it adds real tactical considerations like cover fire and flanking to firefights. It's not enough to really make me a shooter fan again, but it's enough to keep me from being annoyed at developers for just continually putting new paint on 20-year old game mechanics.

I guess I just generally prefer action-adventure or sandbox games nowadays. Combat shouldn't be 100% of what games are about anymore as far as I'm concerned. If developers still want to make shooting the centerpiece of gameplay, then it should at least require some thought along the way, and force you to change weapons and tactics every now and then so it doesn't get stale.

Reverting back to "classic" shooter mechanics just seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

Oh, and full disclosure, the only modern shooters I've played are Resistance, Gears, and Halo. Maybe I'm just missing out on something new and unique that everyone knows about from CoD or Battlefield, but from the sound of the reviews, I kinda doubt it.

>> ^dag:

To be fair, I don't think he was linking to his product, rather a tool for disclosure on blogs. >> ^Boise_Lib:
I love how this guy signed up today in order to shill his product.
I Really love how he tried--twice--to link to it (fail).
dag, Thank You for standing by your principles--even in the face of much needed money.



Yeah, I got that after the update I didn't see till after I commented. Still, good on ya.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

To be fair, I don't think he was linking to his product, rather a tool for disclosure on blogs. >> ^Boise_Lib:

I love how this guy signed up today in order to shill his product.
I Really love how he tried--twice--to link to it (fail).
dag, Thank You for standing by your principles--even in the face of much needed money.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hi Scott, sorry about the link dropping it's an anti-spam measure for new accounts.

>> ^ScottLyon:

Hey Dag, the disclosure tool I mentioned is . For some reason it dropped out of my post above and I the edit feature is timing out.
Scott

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hi Scott, I'm glad to hear that you are requiring disclosure - but in poking around and talking to a few people - I don't believe this is universal.

I take your argument, but in general I think the practice of paid blogging is sleazy and detrimental to the entire blogging ecosystem. You're basically drumming up fake enthusiasm for products or services that a blogger would not normally promote. It's bad for the products and most of all, it's terrible for the blogger, because it erodes any sense of trust that the reader may have had in them.

IMO it's a pretty shameful practice and you'd do well to divorce yourself (and Technorati) from it.

Thanks.

>> ^ScottLyon:

Hi Dag,
Scott here, one of the offending emailers, from the Technorati Media Blogger Outreach team.
My apologies if the receipt of the message offended you. What you’ve shared about bloggers as journalists is certainly true in many cases – and I’m glad we have them doing that important work.
On the flip side, there are many types of bloggers we work with who write passionately about their personal lives, experiences, hobbies, causes, opinions or interests and they welcome opportunities to review new products (like this iPad app) or develop sponsored articles–if the posts fit their editorial direction and keep the integrity of their blog. The “good” and the “bad” of a review is always up to the blogger and sponsored content is typically on a topic the blogger has an affinity for and not about a product itself.
When a blogger works on a campaign with us, we require that they disclose when they have received a product to review or payment for post in the manner of their blog our using a tool like . Most of them are doing this anyway and it’s part of our follow up to the bloggers interested in participating.
We are working on ways and finding tools to better help us connect bloggers with opportunities they find relevant. It's big challenge, but we're working on it.
A big part of my position is not marketing for clients, but to also promote blogs, bloggers and blogging. I huge fan of all the different POVs out there and connecting bloggers to opportunities they might be interested in.
All the best...
Scott Lyon
Blogger Outreach Manager
Technorati Media

Hey Dag, the disclosure tool I mentioned is . For some reason it dropped out of my post above and I the edit feature is timing out.

Scott